By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Is Lady Gaga already becoming irrelevant?

Rath on 16 June 2010
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

You are right in saying that art stimulates an emotional or intellectual response, however where you are wrong is assuming that you can define what will cause that response for each person. That's the bit thats subjective. So yes, as much as I hate Lady Gaga's music to somebody it is art, it stimulates emotion or perhaps even the intellect (though god knows how).

Art is subjective because what causes one person to feel something, does not always cause somebody else to feel the same thing.



Around the Network
mirgro on 16 June 2010
Rath said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

You are right in saying that art stimulates an emotional or intellectual response, however where you are wrong is assuming that you can define what will cause that response for each person. That's the bit thats subjective. So yes, as much as I hate Lady Gaga's music to somebody it is art, it stimulates emotion or perhaps even the intellect (though god knows how).

Art is subjective because what causes one person to feel something, does not always cause somebody else to feel the same thing.

The emotional part yes, however the intellectual no. If Lady Gaga stimulates someone intellectually then they are either very young, very uneducated, or have not seen much of the world at all. It has nothing to do with subjectivity and everything to do with what experiences you have had before, or what one's mental capacity is. In fact, if anyone is intellectualy stimulated by Lady Gaga, it says infinitely more about them than it does the song they are listening to.



blaydcor on 16 June 2010
Rpruett said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?


Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.

You are using personal reference.  Just because YOU get goosebumps or tears doesn't mean, I do or the guy down the street does.   Lady Gaga could easily stimulate you intellectually and evoke emotion.  (And last time I checked, Joy or Happiness fits the billing of an emotion). 

Again,  you can't take your personal opinions and express them as fact.   Art has a myriad of definitions beyond the one you listed and you can't prove Gaga doesn't fit with the one you listed either. 

Art is anything made with the intention of being art. 

Lady Gaga has said she "just makes mindless electronica." Which I'm not knocking; I love me some mindless electronica. BUT. It's not art, especially if she's professed as much. 



Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.

Rath on 16 June 2010
blaydcor said:
Rpruett said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?


Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.

You are using personal reference.  Just because YOU get goosebumps or tears doesn't mean, I do or the guy down the street does.   Lady Gaga could easily stimulate you intellectually and evoke emotion.  (And last time I checked, Joy or Happiness fits the billing of an emotion). 

Again,  you can't take your personal opinions and express them as fact.   Art has a myriad of definitions beyond the one you listed and you can't prove Gaga doesn't fit with the one you listed either. 

Art is anything made with the intention of being art. 

Lady Gaga has said she "just makes mindless electronica." Which I'm not knocking; I love me some mindless electronica. BUT. It's not art, especially if she's professed as much. 

I'd argue that the intention of the creator is irrelevant, it's the perception of others that matters.

But to be honest I'm kind of talking out my arse =P



Rpruett on 17 June 2010
blaydcor said:
Rpruett said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?


Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.

You are using personal reference.  Just because YOU get goosebumps or tears doesn't mean, I do or the guy down the street does.   Lady Gaga could easily stimulate you intellectually and evoke emotion.  (And last time I checked, Joy or Happiness fits the billing of an emotion). 

Again,  you can't take your personal opinions and express them as fact.   Art has a myriad of definitions beyond the one you listed and you can't prove Gaga doesn't fit with the one you listed either. 

Art is anything made with the intention of being art. 

Lady Gaga has said she "just makes mindless electronica." Which I'm not knocking; I love me some mindless electronica. BUT. It's not art, especially if she's professed as much. 

And you really believe that?  You are taking her at face value?  She has said hundreds of off the wall things.  To me, someone who lives, breaths, etc on her image and is constantly doing different things is not just 'making mindless electronica'.  

She also says she has a penis.   How far are you willing to believe her?  

She obviously likes causing controversy and saying things to get people up in arms or talking about her.  I highly doubt that quote (If even true) was said in seriousness. 



Around the Network
Rpruett on 17 June 2010
mirgro said:

The emotional part yes, however the intellectual no. If Lady Gaga stimulates someone intellectually then they are either very young, very uneducated, or have not seen much of the world at all.

It has nothing to do with subjectivity and everything to do with what experiences you have had before, or what one's mental capacity is.

In fact, if anyone is intellectualy stimulated by Lady Gaga, it says infinitely more about them than it does the song they are listening to.

Why not intellectually?  Is there not hidden meanings/messages/view points contained within lyrics? Is there not broader reaching intellectual topics conveyed in these meanings/messages/view points?  If you think not,  Can you verify there isn't? 

You're making some broad assumptions on intelligence contained within music.   What would you consider music that is intellectually stimulating?  And what makes it more intellectually stimulating? 



blaydcor on 17 June 2010
Rpruett said:
blaydcor said:
Rpruett said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?


Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.

You are using personal reference.  Just because YOU get goosebumps or tears doesn't mean, I do or the guy down the street does.   Lady Gaga could easily stimulate you intellectually and evoke emotion.  (And last time I checked, Joy or Happiness fits the billing of an emotion). 

Again,  you can't take your personal opinions and express them as fact.   Art has a myriad of definitions beyond the one you listed and you can't prove Gaga doesn't fit with the one you listed either. 

Art is anything made with the intention of being art. 

Lady Gaga has said she "just makes mindless electronica." Which I'm not knocking; I love me some mindless electronica. BUT. It's not art, especially if she's professed as much. 

And you really believe that?  You are taking her at face value?  She has said hundreds of off the wall things.  To me, someone who lives, breaths, etc on her image and is constantly doing different things is not just 'making mindless electronica'.  

She also says she has a penis.   How far are you willing to believe her?  

She obviously likes causing controversy and saying things to get people up in arms or talking about her.  I highly doubt that quote (If even true) was said in seriousness. 


You'd have a point if (a) how would she be creating controversy by saying that, and (b) it is mindless electronica. If you have any musical grounding, any musical knowledge, are at all familiar with the progression of electronica over the past 20 years...then, yeah. It's mindless, simple, unoriginal electronica.

Imagine if someone was trying to argue that Blink 182 revolutionized pop by 'bringing punk mainstream' with their deep, sophisticated art-rock...since I'm assuming you know rock pretty well, you'd know this is nonsense. Blink is fun and poppy, but their neither artful nor revolutionary. 

Gaga is their electronic-dance analogue, musically. 



Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.